Will rebranding DEI be enough to avoid federal scrutiny?

Following President Trump’s Executive Order aimed at dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across the federal government and its contractors, the private sector has responded with a dramatic and rapid reversal of policy.

This rollback has seen a significant number of industry leaders scrap long-standing hiring targets, eliminate diversity-specific roles and formally retire representative quotas. However, beyond the operational cuts, companies are engaging in a sophisticated ‘DEI’ rebranding exercise to survive a new legal and political climate. To understand the scale of this shift, we conducted a linguistic analysis of twenty major global corporations and identified how the language of ‘diversity’ is being systematically replaced by a new vocabulary of ‘merit’ and ‘belonging’ to reduce public and legal exposure.

A primary trend emerging from our research is the strategic replacement of ‘equity’ with terms like ‘opportunity’ or ‘merit’. This shift reflects a desire to move away from the political baggage associated with equity, which critics argue prioritises equal outcomes over individual achievement. JPMorgan Chase led this charge by rebranding its programme to ‘DOI’, which stands for diversity, opportunity and inclusion, explicitly stating that their focus has always been on equal opportunity rather than equal results. Pfizer has adopted a similar stance by retitling its digital presence to ‘merit-based diversity, equity and inclusion’, while Morgan Stanley has pivoted its annual reporting to place ‘meritocracy’ at the heart of its talent development.

As the DEI label becomes a lightning rod for litigation and executive branch scrutiny, many firms are pivoting toward the more neutral, psychological concept of ‘belonging’. This term appears to be the most dominant successor in the corporate dictionary. For instance, UnitedHealth and Starbucks have scrubbed DEI headers in favour of a ‘culture of belonging’, while retail giants like Walmart, Target and Kohl’s have renamed their executive leadership roles to focus on ‘inclusion and belonging’. By framing these initiatives through the lens of a universal workplace experience, companies are attempting to lower their public profile while maintaining internal culture.

Our analysis also points toward a strategic reframing of diversity work, moving it away from standalone departments and folding it into general corporate development. By rebranding these efforts under broader umbrellas, companies can maintain internal programmes with less external exposure. Citigroup, for example, has adopted this approach by folding its DEI initiatives into ‘talent management and engagement’, effectively stripping the specific diversity label from its organisational chart. Similarly, Warner Bros and GSK have simplified their branding to focus solely on ‘inclusion’.

Ultimately, this linguistic pivot is a calculated act of corporate self-preservation. For major federal contractors, the word ‘diversity’ has transitioned from a brand asset to a legal liability. By swapping ‘equity’ for equality and ‘diversity’ for talent, corporate America isn't just changing its letterhead—it is building a defensive wall against federal investigations while attempting to keep the engine of global business running.